Richard Dawkins & Daniel Dennett. Oxford, 9 May 2012

31 views
Skip to first unread message

Metspitzer

unread,
Jun 2, 2012, 2:56:33 PM6/2/12
to

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jun 2, 2012, 7:06:00 PM6/2/12
to
On Jun 2, 11:56 am, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA

Let me guess, evolution-did-it?

Ray

Syamsu

unread,
Jun 2, 2012, 11:37:37 PM6/2/12
to
2 really old guys talking about nothing really, watched with much
interest by a large audience. I think its great people showing
interest in old geezers who say about nothing.

wiki trix

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 12:20:09 AM6/3/12
to
On Jun 2, 2:56 pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA

It looks like Dawkins' right pant leg hem has become unstitched in
that video. I think that proves Dawkins is wrong a god exists.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 1:06:16 AM6/3/12
to
[sarcasm] No. Memes-did-it :-) [sarcasm]

Nashton

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 6:41:46 AM6/3/12
to
On 12-06-02 3:56 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA
>


Darwin's idea unifies everything from Physics to quarks?
Almost spit out my coffee in laughter. I shouldn't read t.o. too early
in the morning. I need this kind of comic relief at the end of the week. ;p

Nashton

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 6:43:46 AM6/3/12
to
Nah. Just proves that he's a slob that has no self respect. But I didn't
need the hem to know this.

Burkhard

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 8:26:59 AM6/3/12
to
Lets add "hate of and contempt for elderly people" to the long list of
your unpleasant character traits

wiki trix

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 10:58:34 AM6/3/12
to
It does sound extreme... but it actually does explain every process
that has imperfect self-replication combined with differential
existential probability. That includes biological evolution. That
includes meta-cosmological evolution described in Linde's chaotic
inflationary principle of universe creation. It applies to evolution
of languages, technologies, clothing fashions, religions, neural
network learning, and even human thought. And that, BTW, is why I
always say that intelligence is in all cases an illusion.

backspace

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 11:39:28 AM6/3/12
to
On Jun 2, 7:56 pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA

Dennett says that the bird's wing came about via *differential*
replication of mindless mutations(around 4min).

Differential is yet another dissimilar term for incremental increase
in attributes via the natural means of competitive
selection,preservation. There is nothing in the dictionary definition
of differential itself that will explain its metaphorical usage. For
that a study of Spencer, OoS, Tyndall, Samuel Butler etc. is needed.

A person not conversant with the same underlying idea for which many
and variant dissimilar terms can be used will have no idea what
Dennett is talking about.

jillery

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 12:15:56 PM6/3/12
to
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:56:33 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
wrote:

>http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA


Very interesting conversation. Thank you for posting the link.

Syamsu

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 12:29:30 PM6/3/12
to
I don't know what you're talking about, I thought it was a great show
of respect for old geezers.

wiki trix

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 12:38:47 PM6/3/12
to
The point you are talking about is at 3 minutes and 53 seconds. Here
is the link to that offset:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA#t=3m53s

Dennett said:

"...the design of the bird's wing, it came about by differential
replication of what are basically unintended more or less mindless
mutations".

If you look up "differential replication" on dictionary.com, you get
the "Darwinism" article:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Differential+replication

And no, you do not have to study Spencer, Tyndall, or Butler to
understand what Dennett is talking about here. Only Darwin is
required.

backspace

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 12:27:49 PM6/3/12
to
Are we to assume therefore that your entire paragraph itself was an
illusion?

backspace

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 12:47:54 PM6/3/12
to
''.....In Indonesia they build see faring boats. The see is the
selector, the boats that come back, they copy, those that don't they
don't copy. It is natural selection right there. at 5:40 min .....''

Thus they replicate those designs that work, which is a truism. What
is taking place is an expression of design attributes, no attributes
were acquired by the boat builders. They always had the latent ability
to build boats. Furthermore it doesn't explain the actual reason why
those see faring boats have the characteristics that enable see
worthiness.

Dennett is doing post-factum rationalization , because if the other
boats instead were see worthy he would tell us the same thing. His
argument is constructed so that it can't be verified or refuted and is
thus unfalsifiable, enabling him to insert his non-sequitur, that by a
slow differential or incremental process each generation acquired the
attributes to enable them to design better boats. From the YEC view,
they merely expressed their pre-existing attributes. See
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Culture

Dennett repeats the same concept over and over again, yet not using
the same terms but *dissimilar* terms, in order to obfuscate his
Argument by Repetition fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ad_nauseam)

Niche, Ecosystem, Society, Cognition, Climate are dissimilar terms
used to describe the same concept: your condition of existence, to
which you are not adapted from the YEC premise. Dennett engages in a
process where he uses one of many dissimilar terms. An entire 40min
Youtube conversation can be constructed to discuss your *condition of
existence* and formulating the same core idea namely adaptation by
using one of the many dissimilar terms available - niche, ecosystem,
society, cognition, climate etc. This deceives the unguarded into
thinking that an elaborate theory is being proposed ,while it is
merely the same underlying Adaptation theme being expressed: The
acquisition(adaptation) of attributes as opposed to expression(YEC) of
attributes via the natural means of Democritus like Atomic competitive
preservation(selection) of favorable attributes enabling the
domination of an ecological niche.

wiki trix

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 1:14:21 PM6/3/12
to
Duh

backspace

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 2:08:15 PM6/3/12
to
Lets just say Burkhard's point went over your head.

Burkhard

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 2:41:56 PM6/3/12
to
On Jun 3, 4:39 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 7:56 pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA
>
> Dennett says that the bird's wing came about via *differential*
> replication of mindless mutations(around 4min).
>
> Differential is yet another dissimilar term for incremental increase
> in attributes via the natural means of competitive
> selection,preservation.

Nope, differential simply means: "in different degrees."

>There is nothing in the dictionary definition
> of differential itself that will explain its metaphorical usage. For
> that a study of Spencer, OoS, Tyndall, Samuel Butler etc. is needed.
>
> A person not conversant with the same underlying idea for which many
> and variant dissimilar terms can be used will have no idea what
> Dennett is talking about.

I'd say every competent speaker of English with a basic grasp of
science should be able to get the idea. My 5 year old nephew did, and
he has never heard of Spencer
etc for sure.

Syamsu

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 3:00:41 PM6/3/12
to
Come on, screaming green tie, fat bellies, old shoes, sitting back,
and they looked like they were going to doze off any moment, mumbling
surprisingly coherently, rehashing old tired stuff, these are old
geezers saying nothing, with an intently listening audience.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 3:19:57 PM6/3/12
to
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Jun 2, 7:56 pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA
>
>Dennett says that the bird's wing came about via *differential*
>replication of mindless mutations(around 4min).
>
>Differential is yet another dissimilar term <yadda, yadda, yadda, ad infinitum>

Do the world a favor. Hemorrhage.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Burkhard

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 4:56:12 PM6/3/12
to
On Jun 3, 5:47 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ''.....In Indonesia they build see faring boats. The see is the
> selector, the boats that come back, they copy, those that don't they
> don't copy. It is natural  selection right there. at 5:40 min .....''
>
> Thus they replicate those designs that work, which is a truism.

Far from it, I'd say it is a contingent fact about that culture, which
relies on their learning ability (can they spot the patterns,
interpret them correctly etc) absence of countervailing belief
systems ( as the opposition of lightening rods in Europe showed, they
might think that building better boats interferes with the punishment
of the sea gods)and a whole lot of other factors. There are lots and
lots of reasons why the less optimal design could be chosen - just
think of the VHS v. Betamax debate

What
> is taking place is an expression of design attributes, no attributes
> were acquired by the boat builders.

? Of course no attributes were acquired by the boat builders, we are
talking about attributes of the boats here.

> They always had the latent ability
> to build boats. Furthermore it doesn't explain the actual reason why
> those see faring boats have the characteristics that enable see
> worthiness.
>

So what? Why would a top level concept explain such a specific issue?
The theory of gravity explains in principle how a canon ball flies,
but won't tell you in itself who, and from where, the bullet was fired
that killed Sir Thomas Picton at Waterloo.

To explain what features exactly make one ship better than the other
requires in addition knowledge from engineering, the concept of
natural selection only tells you where to look for it (to the
interaction of ships with their environment in this case) Same with
biological traits - the concept of natural selection only makes it
meaningful to ask a couple of questions regarding the traits of
individuals, it directs us to the way in which we can then formulate a
whole bunch of falsifiable "local" theories that add information about
the specific trait, the specific environment etc.

> Dennett is doing post-factum rationalization , because if the other
> boats instead were see worthy he would tell us the same thing. His
> argument is constructed so that it can't be verified or refuted

Sure can be refuted. Go to the fisherman and ask them: how do you
decide what features to keep in a ship, and which ones to change? If
they tell you: well, we draw a lot and keep whatever gets the highest
number", the theory that their approach to shipbuilding is an example
of selection is refuted.

>and is
> thus unfalsifiable, enabling him to insert his non-sequitur, that by a
> slow differential or incremental process  each generation acquired the
> attributes to enable them to design better boats. From the YEC view,
> they merely expressed their pre-existing attributes.

The pre existing attributes of the ship? What you say makes no sense
whatsoever.

Seehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Culture

Bill

unread,
Jun 3, 2012, 10:06:00 PM6/3/12
to
On Jun 3, 1:56 am, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA

It's not that I don't like Dawkins; he's very, very smart, and I
usually agree with him. But I find Dennett to be truly admirable.

backspace

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 1:37:13 AM6/4/12
to
On Jun 3, 9:56 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 5:47 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ''.....In Indonesia they build see faring boats. The see is the
> > selector, the boats that come back, they copy, those that don't they
> > don't copy. It is natural  selection right there. at 5:40 min .....''
>
> > Thus they replicate those designs that work, which is a truism.
>
> Far from it, I'd say it is a contingent fact about that culture, which
> relies on their learning ability (can they spot the patterns,
> interpret them correctly etc)  absence of countervailing belief
> systems ( as the opposition of lightening rods in Europe showed, they
> might think that building better boats interferes with the punishment
> of the sea gods)and a whole lot of other factors. There are lots and
> lots of reasons why the less optimal design could be chosen - just
> think of the VHS v. Betamax debate
>
> What
>
> > is taking place is an expression of design attributes, no attributes
> > were acquired by the boat builders.
>
> ? Of course no attributes were acquired by the boat builders, we are
> talking about attributes of the boats here.
>
> > They always had the latent ability
> > to build boats. Furthermore it doesn't explain the actual reason why
> > those see faring boats have the characteristics that enable see
> > worthiness.
>
> So what? Why would a top level concept explain such a specific issue?

You mean that Purposeless purpose(natural selection) is a top level
concept. As a semantic construct is an oxymoron as described by John
D. Brey in his book Tautological Oxymorons.

Probably you are using the oxymoron as a metaphor for a full sentence,
but have not yet defined said sentence.

Burkhard

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 4:41:56 AM6/4/12
to
No, I mean exactly what I say. Every theory has some very general
concepts and very abstract definitions and laws describing them. It is
never possible, nor necessary, to derive answers on very specific,
"low level" questions by using these concepts and laws and nothing
else.

What these concepts allow us to do is to add in the detail for every
specific application as required, and then form specific, testable
hypotheses.

> As a semantic construct is an oxymoron as described by John
> D. Brey in his book Tautological Oxymorons

Fortunately enough, neither I,nor indeed reality, cares a lot about
the weird word magic theory of some chap who writes really odd stuff
about theology (have you read his "cutting off god's member"?)

>
> Probably you are using the oxymoron as a metaphor for a full sentence,
> but have not yet defined said sentence.

Why would anyone want to define a sentence? We typically define
objects or concepts.

In the specific context, the sentences in question are pretty clear:
The observable change in frequency of attributes that the ships have
can be explained by a process that is very similar to that of natural
selection in biology - in any given fishing expedition (in biology:
generation) the causal interactions of ships with their environment
will increase or decrease the chance of a certain ship to make it back
to harbour (in biology: chance of reproduction), depending
systematically on certain design feature that some ships have and
others don't ("differential") . The way in which the fisherman build
new ships (copying those that come back to harbour - in biology
reproduction) ensures that over time, features of the ship that
increase its chances of coming back will increase in frequency in the
fleet, while those that decrease its chance of coming back will also
decrease.

backspace

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 10:25:15 AM6/4/12
to

Karel

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 10:46:28 AM6/4/12
to
> nowhere to be found athttp://books.google.co.za/books/about/Tautological_Oxymorons.html?id=...

For the Google-challenged:
http://johndbrey.blogspot.com/

Regards,

Karel

Burkhard

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 10:46:45 AM6/4/12
to
> nowhere to be found athttp://books.google.co.za/books/about/Tautological_Oxymorons.html?id=...

Check the papers on his website

backspace

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 10:51:55 AM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 9:41 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Probably you are using the oxymoron as a metaphor for a full
sentence,
> > but have not yet defined said sentence.
>
> Why would anyone want to define a sentence? We typically define
> objects or concepts.
>
>  In the specific context, the sentences in question are  pretty clear:
> The observable change in frequency of attributes that the ships have
> can be explained by a process that is very similar to that of natural
> selection in biology - in any given fishing expedition (in biology:

Which begs the question: what is a natural selection?

Burkhard

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 1:00:58 PM6/4/12
to
My short paragraph that followed, and which you snipped without
indicating, pretty much explained it, for the hundredth time at
least.
The sum total of causal interaction between organisms and their
environment, such that having a certain inheritable trait increases
the statistical chances of the individual to have offspring, and
lacking that trait decreases that chance.

Examples of such causal interaction include the sunlight reflecting
from a beetle whose pigmentation makes it very similar to the
underground it sits on, which causes a bird to overlook it (which
means it "might" be able to have offspring) and eat one lacking that
pigmentation instead. Now just quantify over all those interactions,
and you are pretty much there.

wiki trix

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 1:44:35 PM6/4/12
to
I think that what he means here by "begs the question" is not the
standard meaning of "assuming the initial point", but rather more
along the lines of the common colloquial misuse of that term. That is
that your detailed and accurate answers only beg him to pose more
questions of ever greater and greater stupidity, in the troll feeding
sense.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 1:51:40 PM6/4/12
to
In article
<904c7210-f2b9-4bf2...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
Including that (allegedly) behind your posts?

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 3:20:07 PM6/4/12
to
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:00:58 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>On Jun 4, 3:51 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 9:41 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>  > Probably you are using the oxymoron as a metaphor for a full
>> sentence,
>>
>> > > but have not yet defined said sentence.
>>
>> > Why would anyone want to define a sentence? We typically define
>> > objects or concepts.
>>
>> >  In the specific context, the sentences in question are  pretty clear:
>> > The observable change in frequency of attributes that the ships have
>> > can be explained by a process that is very similar to that of natural
>> > selection in biology - in any given fishing expedition (in biology:
>>
>> Which begs the question: what is a natural selection?
>
>My short paragraph that followed, and which you snipped without
>indicating, pretty much explained it, for the hundredth time at
>least.

Which is a surprise?

>The sum total of causal interaction between organisms and their
>environment, such that having a certain inheritable trait increases
>the statistical chances of the individual to have offspring, and
>lacking that trait decreases that chance.
>
>Examples of such causal interaction include the sunlight reflecting
>from a beetle whose pigmentation makes it very similar to the
>underground it sits on, which causes a bird to overlook it (which
>means it "might" be able to have offspring) and eat one lacking that
>pigmentation instead. Now just quantify over all those interactions,
>and you are pretty much there.

Why do you bother? He'll either ignore the reply, or create
a cascade of modifications/redefinitions in order to arrive
at some idiotic claim not even he can understand. Either way
he'll just ask the same question later and ignore the reply
again; it's what he does for amusement.

wiki trix

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 4:10:02 PM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 1:51 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <904c7210-f2b9-4bf2-92fc-b4c15aac0...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
>  wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 6:41 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > > On 12-06-02 3:56 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA
>
> > > Darwin's idea unifies everything from Physics to quarks?
> > > Almost spit out my coffee in laughter. I shouldn't read t.o. too early
> > > in the morning. I need this kind of comic relief at the end of the week.  ;p
>
> > It does sound extreme... but it actually does explain every process
> > that has imperfect self-replication combined with differential
> > existential probability. That includes biological evolution. That
> > includes meta-cosmological evolution described in Linde's chaotic
> > inflationary principle of universe creation. It applies to evolution
> > of languages, technologies, clothing fashions, religions, neural
> > network learning, and even human thought. And that, BTW, is why I
> > always say that intelligence is in all cases an illusion.
>
> Including that (allegedly) behind your posts?

Duh. That should be obvious. But that in no way detracts from the
beauty and profundity of said illusion.


Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 6:49:01 PM6/4/12
to
On Jun 2, 11:56 am, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA

Dawkins is a mathematically incompetent evolutionist bungler who has
made a “thinko”. He has ignored the multiplication rule of
probabilities when it comes to natural selection.

Bill

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 7:03:49 PM6/4/12
to
To a kid with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

wiki trix

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 7:10:59 PM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 7:03�pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 5:49�am, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 11:56�am, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA
>
> > Dawkins is a mathematically incompetent evolutionist bungler who has
> > made a �thinko�. He has ignored the multiplication rule of
> > probabilities when it comes to natural selection.
>
> To a kid with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

When I was a kid with a hammer, everything looked like a snail. I am
kinder to animals now...

wiki trix

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 7:09:57 PM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 6:49�pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:56�am, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA
>
> Dawkins is a mathematically incompetent evolutionist bungler who has
> made a �thinko�. He has ignored the multiplication rule of
> probabilities when it comes to natural selection.

At what point in the video are saying that error is made... do you
have a specific point in time?

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 8:16:29 PM6/4/12
to
Can you keep this nonsense quarantined to your own neverending threads
and not cross-contaminate? Non Dr. X2 threads should not get infected by
your virus. Otherwise the outbreak could spread far and wide and we have
a pandemic on our hands. Basic epidemiology.


Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 8:57:31 PM6/4/12
to
There you go, an evolutionist who is afraid his belief system will be
contaminated with hard mathematical logic and empirical evidence.
Don’t worry, I’m going back to The Theory of Evolution is a
Mathematically Irrational Belief Part 5 (soon to be part 6) because
I’m about to win a $10,000 wager with Mark Isaak about the failure of
neutral evolution. It sure takes a long time (and money) for you
evolutionists to learn about the multiplication rule of probabilities.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 8:51:55 PM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 4:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 6:49 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 11:56 am, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA
>
> > Dawkins is a mathematically incompetent evolutionist bungler who has
> > made a thinko . He has ignored the multiplication rule of
> > probabilities when it comes to natural selection.
>
> At what point in the video are saying that error is made... do you
> have a specific point in time?

Dawkins makes sweeping generalizations about how mutation and
selection without ever specifically describing how the process works.
That's why he makes a "thinko". Dawkins doesn't understand what the
multiplication rule of probabilities does in a stochastic process.
There is no specific point where he makes this error. It just is not
on his radar screen (in his discussion).

wiki trix

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 9:13:17 PM6/4/12
to
I have not noticed anything he has ever said that indicates any lack
of understanding simple probability theory.
Just so that I understand your point, does this "thinko" you refer to
make genetic algorithms impossible in any way?


Ray Martinez

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 9:27:30 PM6/4/12
to
It would be nice if you would spell out that wager here, like the
specifics?

In my discussions with Evolutionists I have found that most do not
understand "neutral evolution." They seem to think the concept exists
to compete against selection (it does not).

Ray






Free Lunch

unread,
Jun 4, 2012, 9:30:04 PM6/4/12
to
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote in talk.origins:

>On Jun 4, 5:16 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/04/2012 06:49 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 11:56 am, Metspitzer<Kilow...@charter.net>  wrote:
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdU-UtEJEIA
>>
>> > Dawkins is a mathematically incompetent evolutionist bungler who has
>> > made a “thinko”. He has ignored the multiplication rule of
>> > probabilities when it comes to natural selection.
>>
>> Can you keep this nonsense quarantined to your own neverending threads
>> and not cross-contaminate? Non Dr. X2 threads should not get infected by
>> your virus. Otherwise the outbreak could spread far and wide and we have
>> a pandemic on our hands. Basic epidemiology.
>
>There you go, an evolutionist who is afraid his belief system will be
>contaminated with hard mathematical logic and empirical evidence.

I have not seen a scientist yet who acts the way you allege.

>Don’t worry, I’m going back to The Theory of Evolution is a
>Mathematically Irrational Belief Part 5 (soon to be part 6) because
>I’m about to win a $10,000 wager with Mark Isaak about the failure of
>neutral evolution. It sure takes a long time (and money) for you
>evolutionists to learn about the multiplication rule of probabilities.

You seem to be very happy with your misunderstandings of reality.

backspace

unread,
Jun 5, 2012, 12:00:20 PM6/5/12
to
Are you using selection in the pattern or design sense?

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jun 5, 2012, 2:36:46 PM6/5/12
to
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:00:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
Are you using sense in the backspace sense or the
everyone-else-in-the-world-possessing-more-than-one-neuron
sense?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages